mike.shaver at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 07:30:26 PDT 2008
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, David Teller
<David.Teller at univ-orleans.fr> wrote:
> In my experience, the main problem with JS was the impossibility of
> extending it. That is, no notion of libraries and no built-in
> pre-processor (although reflexivity could be used for similar purposes).
> A consequence was that any extension deemed important by the developers
> of a browser had to be bolted-on in non-specified manners.
I don't quite understand this -- could you give an example of a
language that has better support for libraries as part of its language
specification? I don't think the C specification includes linking (or
even the ABI, though C++ grew an ABI specification later), so it seems
to be about at the same point of "get your code into scope somehow".
Browsers use <script> for that, and many an AJAX toolkit has added new
capabilities to the environment through just that means.
More information about the Es4-discuss